And no, I'm not going to go dig up historical citations where people used Redskins as a slur. I'll trust THE DICTIONARY that it was historically so.

Deadskins wrote:You've never heard the term "white devil" or "whitey" used in a derogatory manner?

Sure I have heard both. And yes, I agree that they are both slurs. They are also both nouns, right? Someone calling you "white" is most likely different from somebody calling you a "white devil". Someone calling another person "black" is different from calling someone a "black sonofa*****".

Deadskins wrote:Just because a word has been used as a slur by some in the past, does not make its use as the name for our favorite team a slur.

I COMPLETELY AGREE. But if your statement is true, then the CONVERSE IS TRUE TOO. The fact that our favorite team is not using the name as a slur, does NOT MEAN THAT THE WORD WAS NOT USED AS A SLUR IN THE PAST.

Touchy subject to make my first post on, but here goes:

The whole dictionary defense is pretty worthless. None I have ever read, including the one you site, has listed midget as a perjorative to a Dwarf/Little Person. Yet if you ask them, they will tell you that it is definitely a perjorative. So someone, who has absolutely no clue what a perjorative is, is claiming something is a perjorative? Im confused as to why I should believe them.

One of the other problems with this whole issue is most people screaming against the name Redskins tend to call Indians "Native Americans" which, to a lot of Indians, is blatantly racist. You might want to actually talk TO them before you speak FOR them.

During the 1995 US Gov't Census, a questionnaire was sent out to the Indian Tribes. 50% of all Indian respondents said they preferred to be called either Indians or American Indians. Only 37% had a favorable view of the term Native American, which was primarily the young population. Older ones were much more against it. There reasoning is simple. When their ancestors owned the land, it wasnt called America. And when it became America, their land was stolen.

Of course, none of this even talks about Susan Harjo. When someone says to her something about the term Redskins that she does not like, her typical response is "Well thats mighty white of you". I would love for someone to tell me that isnt racist. Great... I have racists calling me racist because I dont believe in their racist ideals... Awesome.

Lets also not forget, unless you consider Cheifs, Braves, ect to be racist, then you are doing a disservice to every Indian that you are claiming to defend. They are against them all, they claim every last one is racist. Amanda Blackhorse, the younger female Indian who is slowly taking over for Susan Harjo, was asked a question about if she believes that all Indians usage is racist and she answered with an emphatic "Yes". When she was asked why they were only suing for the name Redskins to be done away with and not all of them. Her response was basically (im paraphrasing as I dont remember it word for word) that the Redskins would be the easiest to fall due to the perceived racial component, but that once that first name falls, it opens the doors for all of them to fall. She did say that she considers Redskins to be "more" racist, but that all of them were, in fact, racist.

Do the dictionaries list Indian, Brave, Chief, ect as racist? If not, then stop using that stupid dictionary defense when the Indians that you are defending flat out call the usage of those words... Racist.

Great first post! There is one universal element that seems to reside in the hearts and minds of such "activists", regardless of their chosen "cause", and that is a very authoritarian, dogmatic and dictatorial persona that believes they have a right to impose their views upon others by force, no matter if their viewpoint reflects an extreme minority opinion.

And you highlight a very important point about this being a first step in a greater goal of imposing their will, with the name "Redskins" considered by them to be low hanging fruit that should be picked first. And I also find it consistent with my experience that those so quick to charge racism are themselves pure racists, as shown in the quote you mentioned.

Do you have a source which quotes her as saying "Well, that's mighty white of you" ? I am not questioning you ... just would like to see a corroborating source.

Clark4HOF wrote:Do the dictionaries list Indian, Brave, Chief, ect as racist? If not, then stop using that stupid dictionary defense when the Indians that you are defending flat out call the usage of those words... Racist.

Anyway, I'm going to bail here because I'm getting forced to defend something I don't believe myself - whether or not the word is really offensive TODAY. I'm not trying to defend whether people have a right to be offended by the name. I'm just stating a historical fact that the word "Redskins" was at one time used an ethnic slur. I don't really see why people want to debate that, but whatever.

I think the idea that people are legitimately offended by the name now is complete B.S. The guy on the DC council who brought this back in the news last week is some white dude trying to make political hay. Its a lot of completely phony outrage in my opinion.

The flip side to annoying political correctness is that there are thousands of aggrieved old white guys out there who can't acknowledge that some group of minorities every got screwed over and will argue against well beyond the limits of common sense. Its just as phony, but if it makes you feel better, carry on.

riggofan wrote:Anyway, I'm going to bail here because I'm getting forced to defend something I don't believe myself - whether or not the word is really offensive TODAY. I'm not trying to defend whether people have a right to be offended by the name. I'm just stating a historical fact that the word "Redskins" was at one time used an ethnic slur. I don't really see why people want to debate that, but whatever.

I think the idea that people are legitimately offended by the name now is complete B.S. The guy on the DC council who brought this back in the news last week is some white dude trying to make political hay. Its a lot of completely phony outrage in my opinion.

The flip side to annoying political correctness is that there are thousands of aggrieved old white guys out there who can't acknowledge that some group of minorities every got screwed over and will argue against well beyond the limits of common sense. Its just as phony, but if it makes you feel better, carry on.

The reason why people want to debate whether, at one time, it was used as a slur is because overweight people have been called refrigerators. Perceived ugly people have been called dogs. There really isnt many words that havent been used as a perjorative.

Yes, some people threw the word Redskins at an Indian to be meant as an insult. I dont think people are denying that, im certainly not. We are just saying a few random people saying it doesnt make it mean what just those few random people are claiming it means. Otherwise a refrigerator is not meant to keep food cool and safe, it is only meant as a perjorative. No one would own a dog, as that is used as a perjorative.

PS... The standard set by Susan Harjo is "Only the offended are allowed to decide if they are offended"

The standard by others is "If only one person is offended, then we need to make sure to do away with it"

So no stupid comments about refrigerator and dog. Seeing as the popular consensus says if they are offended, no one has the right to say otherwise. So when Susan Harjo gets rid of her refrigerator, as it is clearly offensive to at least one person, then we can continue this debate. Otherwise its all hypocrisy and 15 minutes of fame.

We are about to have a language that only has verbs and adjectives in it. Where does it end?

Clark4HOF wrote:Do the dictionaries list Indian, Brave, Chief, ect as racist? If not, then stop using that stupid dictionary defense when the Indians that you are defending flat out call the usage of those words... Racist.

Thanks for highlighting my point for me, bro.

barf.

Your point was that dictionaries are the moral authority in this country and the word midget proves that wrong.

I think it was great that he gave that answer. He was asked a question ad answered it, giving a straightforward, emphatic answer that reassures us fans. No squirming or anything like that.

I'm with you man.

I agree with CLL on this issue. We shouldn't be so strident as to think that just, because the natives make up a small percentage of the population that the rest of us can tell them what they should think. Yeah, the name to us is tradition; however, if it is viewed as racist to the those who the name is modeled after, then I think we need to respect the culture who we claim to be respecting.

True, but even amongst Native Americans, those that are offended by the name are a small minority.

RayNAustin wrote:The error in this entire debate is in the false politically correct assumption that actions can and should be taken to avoid offending people, when the goal itself is a fools errand.

Dude, I COMPLETELY agree with you about this. I have no desire to see the name changed. I just personally feel that many Redskins fans come up with the freaking STUPIDEST defenses of the name.

Like I said, I don't think it is at all stupid to claim that the term Redskins is not a slur, whatever the reason stated. The bottom line is, people don't usually assign themselves offensive names, therefore it seems only reasonable that the Washington Redskins have NEVER considered the name disparaging, else they would not have adopted the name as their trademark. Does that not make sense?

Now, with that said, nobody is suggesting that someone else doesn't take offense, because OBVIOUSLY some do. The matter boils down to considering such offense as unjustified and unreasonable, and that the Redskins have no obligation to change their name of 80 years, because of the unreasonable attitudes and demands of another.

The reality is, it's really not so much words that offer legitimate basis for claiming offense, as it is the sentiment behind the words that provides context and meaning. Context and intent are the key elements, not the word or words themselves.

This is pretty evident to people who have been around for a while, and have witnessed the changing attitudes and how that has affected what is now considered offensive when in the past it wasn't, and vice versa.

Growing up in the early 60's, it would have been considered highly inappropriate to call a black man a black man ... that would have immediately instigated a fight. The acceptable term in those days was "Colored". It's the reverse of that today, yet some real oldsters might error and refer to black people as colored people, with not one iota of intent to offend. And I could cite numerous examples of what was once considered quite normal and inoffensive, while today people would become outraged.

People of Asian decent were often referred to as Oriental decades ago, and no one thought it was a slur ... but today, Oriental is not acceptable. Some people of latin decent wish to be referred to as Latino, while Hispanic has long been the accepted term. Some Hispanic people will become hostile if referred to as Mexican if they are from another Latin American country. So, you see, this is a moving target, and a foolish and childish game trying to avoid offending people, while never having the intention of offending them in the first place. And that generates hostility in those who mean no harm, yet are constantly targeted with accusations of racism.

You want to call me White-Skin? I say fine ... what an astute observation. Now, if you call me a dirty, no good white-skin a-hole, then I shall consider the context and intent of those remarks, and respond accordingly.

RayNAustin wrote:Great first post! There is one universal element that seems to reside in the hearts and minds of such "activists", regardless of their chosen "cause", and that is a very authoritarian, dogmatic and dictatorial persona that believes they have a right to impose their views upon others by force, no matter if their viewpoint reflects an extreme minority opinion.

And you highlight a very important point about this being a first step in a greater goal of imposing their will, with the name "Redskins" considered by them to be low hanging fruit that should be picked first. And I also find it consistent with my experience that those so quick to charge racism are themselves pure racists, as shown in the quote you mentioned.

Do you have a source which quotes her as saying "Well, that's mighty white of you" ? I am not questioning you ... just would like to see a corroborating source.

I couldnt find the article I wanted to, it is pretty old (think I read it 5+ years ago). Its not as bad as what I read a while ago, but here is where she says "Thats so white" when she was asked if she was handing over the reigns to Amanda Blackhorse. When asked if she was, she responded with thats so white. Then went on to say that Indians dont put stuff onto their children and force them to deal with it. Amanda Blackhorse is 31 so not sure how that is not an adult. Either way, I dont really know that I like the implication that whites dump everything on their kids to deal with everything on their own. Im 44, and my parents are more than willing to help me out however they can. I have a 13 year old daughter, and I have no intention of treating her how Harjo says that I will treat her. Its a misguided stereotype at best.

Heres an article that she wrote. She makes this very political, if you are a republican, her intent is to demean you. But the racial tones of the argument to me are her questioning every non-white that doesnt agree with her as being bad.

"When Native American fans of teams with racist stereotypes defend them, are they just floating down the mainstream? Are they acting out of white privilege or Native privilege and, if the latter, what on earth would that be?"

Basically she is saying that if an Indian doesnt agree with her, that they have issues. Anyone who says people arent allowed to think on their own and must be forced to have a certain opinion based on skin color is absolute nonsense as well as, in my opinion, racist.

RayNAustin wrote:Great first post! There is one universal element that seems to reside in the hearts and minds of such "activists", regardless of their chosen "cause", and that is a very authoritarian, dogmatic and dictatorial persona that believes they have a right to impose their views upon others by force, no matter if their viewpoint reflects an extreme minority opinion.

And you highlight a very important point about this being a first step in a greater goal of imposing their will, with the name "Redskins" considered by them to be low hanging fruit that should be picked first. And I also find it consistent with my experience that those so quick to charge racism are themselves pure racists, as shown in the quote you mentioned.

Do you have a source which quotes her as saying "Well, that's mighty white of you" ? I am not questioning you ... just would like to see a corroborating source.

I couldnt find the article I wanted to, it is pretty old (think I read it 5+ years ago). Its not as bad as what I read a while ago, but here is where she says "Thats so white" when she was asked if she was handing over the reigns to Amanda Blackhorse. When asked if she was, she responded with thats so white. Then went on to say that Indians dont put stuff onto their children and force them to deal with it. Amanda Blackhorse is 31 so not sure how that is not an adult. Either way, I dont really know that I like the implication that whites dump everything on their kids to deal with everything on their own. Im 44, and my parents are more than willing to help me out however they can. I have a 13 year old daughter, and I have no intention of treating her how Harjo says that I will treat her. Its a misguided stereotype at best.

Heres an article that she wrote. She makes this very political, if you are a republican, her intent is to demean you. But the racial tones of the argument to me are her questioning every non-white that doesnt agree with her as being bad.

"When Native American fans of teams with racist stereotypes defend them, are they just floating down the mainstream? Are they acting out of white privilege or Native privilege and, if the latter, what on earth would that be?"

Basically she is saying that if an Indian doesnt agree with her, that they have issues. Anyone who says people arent allowed to think on their own and must be forced to have a certain opinion based on skin color is absolute nonsense as well as, in my opinion, racist.

Three chiefs of Virginia tribes say they don't have a problem with the name.

As Deadskins pointed out, it's a small minority of American Indians who find the name offensive. We should keep that in mind and respect their feelings as well before doing any grandstanding on the matter. (Not pointed at anyone here at THN; I have in mind the pasty white guys at the Post and elsewhere who are doing their best "Here I stand; I can do no other; so help me God" impression.)

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan